Military Olympics

Goobo

Gone Fishin'
I just got a great idea: Military Olympics.


Every 2,4,5 or 10 years most of the worlds nations have some of their best soldiers compete with other nations in an Olympic-like competition. The competition is a major part of considering the quality of the world's militaries.

Scenario 1: Friendly competition. Soldiers compete in things like shooting ranges and athletic events. No one dies in these.

Scenario 2: Competitive competition. This one is cooler, but less likely. Soldiers actually fight and kill each other. Battlefields are set up, some small and some large. They fight almost as if it was a war. I think this could hurt relations and allies would(probably) not fight.

Scenario 3: Friendly and Competitive competition. Basically 1 and 2 combined. Probably more likely than 2 and less than 1.

Scenario 2 and 3 are less implausible than you might think. Military competition without combat would be seen as pointless by some. I think it is inevitable that it would, but nations could agree to not to let this affect diplomacy. I do not think any of these are ASB. Which ones do you think are the least unlikely? Do you disagree with me and think these are completely ASB?
 

U.S David

Banned
They do have this, its in Jordan every few years. Its hosted by the King itself, although the whole thing is mostly countries buying and selling new weapons
 
I just got a great idea: Military Olympics.


Every 2,4,5 or 10 years most of the worlds nations have some of their best soldiers compete with other nations in an Olympic-like competition. The competition is a major part of considering the quality of the world's militaries.

Scenario 1: Friendly competition. Soldiers compete in things like shooting ranges and athletic events. No one dies in these.

Scenario 2: Competitive competition. This one is cooler, but less likely. Soldiers actually fight and kill each other. Battlefields are set up, some small and some large. They fight almost as if it was a war. I think this could hurt relations and allies would(probably) not fight.

Scenario 3: Friendly and Competitive competition. Basically 1 and 2 combined. Probably more likely than 2 and less than 1.

Scenario 2 and 3 are less implausible than you might think. Military competition without combat would be seen as pointless by some. I think it is inevitable that it would, but nations could agree to not to let this affect diplomacy. I do not think any of these are ASB. Which ones do you think are the least unlikely? Do you disagree with me and think these are completely ASB?

Could this evolve from medieval tournaments, with each king sending champions to a host country? I mean they could add archery, then replace it with speed shooting later?

It could be an international tournament every few years, where the winners get bragging rights for four years?
 
The early modern Olympics had a number of events that were modelled pretty closely on military drill. It's not implausible for something like a purely military competition to come out of the sporting spirit of the early 1900s if you get rid of WWI. The fascist states had sportiong events with very military overtones (distance running in gas masks, grenade throwing, hurdles in full combat gear).

I don't think troops would ever be permitted to engage in combat with live ammunition, realistically. But I could certainly see competitive combat exercises, including some pretty dangerous stuff. In the 1900s, German autumn maneuvers routinely produced casualties, and those were pretty amicable. Now imagine it's 1916 and a group of French infantrymen, blunt bayonets fixed, are approaching a forest held by German dismounted cavalry in a war game refereed by Swedish dragoon officers...

Realistically, the games would lag behind real military technology by a fair margin, but as the means for nonlethal simulation improve, they would get more realistic. And the definition of nonlethal can be pretty flexible. Countries that care a bit less about their recruits are reputed to train with rubber bullets and CS gas in the field. You could certainly do that in 1930 or so.
 
This is not a new idea. The things already exist in our actual timeline.

Orienteering:
http://www.cism-milsport.org/eng/003_SPORTS/015_orient/main.asp

Winter/ski competition:
http://www.truppealpine.eu/casta2014/cosa_sono/cosa_sono_ing.htm

Special forces/sniping:
http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140322/NEWS/303220026/Spec-ops-sniper-competition-begins-Monday

The what-if part would be to start these earlier, and as Carlton mentioned, it's not difficult at all. As he mentioned, live-fire exercises with real bullets would be highly unlikely, but it's not as if rubber bullets only became feasible when first produced; the technology already existed at the time of the first modern Olympics. So if there is a need for less-than-lethal ammunition, earlier than in OTL, it could be produced.
 
Originally posted by carlton_bach
The early modern Olympics had a number of events that were modelled pretty closely on military drill. It's not implausible for something like a purely military competition to come out of the sporting spirit of the early 1900s if you get rid of WWI. The fascist states had sportiong events with very military overtones (distance running in gas masks, grenade throwing, hurdles in full combat gear).

Actually even the ancient Olympic games (or Nemeian games ot other games) had events based on military training: javelin throw, pankration, wrestling, hoplites dromos. So, nothing new.
And games with real soldiers competing against each other with real weapons exist since the beginning of mankind. They are called wars.
 
Top